Re: [Usability]Pointer shape in terminals

[Tony Houghton <gnome realh co uk>]

In <1035289325 2293 115 camel simcity>, Calum Benson wrote:

> On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 00:14, Tony Houghton wrote:
> 
> > I thought it would be a good idea to have an option not to change the
> > pointer from its arrow shape, but Havoc brought up the possibility that
> > if it's found that a significant majority don't like the I shape, it
> > should be removed altogether. And if it is made an option anyway, which
> > should be the default?
> 
> I guess the underlying question here is what makes the terminal
> different from something like gedit?  Is there something about it that
> makes it deserving of a special case, or should some new pointer design
> apply to all text fields?

I think the same argument applies to gedit and other plain text editors
as to terminals really. In these applications the window uniformly
contains text, and anyone using them should be expecting that unless
they've opened them by accident, so indicating that there's text under
the pointer (surely the sole purpose of the changed shape) is
superfluous IMO.

They're different from browsers, more sophisticated word processors/DTP
and dialogue boxes with text entry fields, because in these applications
only parts of the windows contain selectable/editable text, so a visual
indicator of these parts is mor/DTP and dialogue boxes with text entry
fields, because in these applications only parts of the windows contain
selectable/editable text, so a visual indicator of these parts is more
useful.

> > An alternative could be to have a different pointer shape, one that
> > gives an indication that the pointer is over text, but still has a clear
> > active point.
> 
> The standard arrow pointer augmented with a smaller representation
> I-beam cursor might be one possible design.  However the I-beam cursor
> is a cross-desktop standard with years of history, so it would probably
> take people a bit of getting used to and IMHO we'd need a pretty
> compelling reason to make something other than the I-beam cursor the
> default.  Maybe the reasons you cited are good enough, I dunno...

I agree about the recognition of the I-beam, but we could also ask
whether it was ever a good design in the first place. Maybe it would be
best to change it more subtly. I assume the active point is at its
centre, so perhaps it could be indicated by having something like a
little loop or notch there.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk